Opinion
December 4, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Carey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the hearing court properly determined that the People had established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the proposed in-court identification of the defendant by an undercover police investigator was based upon the officer's observations made on the three occasions when he purchased drugs from the defendant (see, Neil v Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200; People v Rubio, 133 A.D.2d 475), and was not "tainted" by the officer's subsequent viewings of the defendant on the day of his arrest (People v Rahming, 26 N.Y.2d 411, 417). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.